Final Report of the Faculty Advisory Committee for AY 2002-2003

Shaul Cohen, FAC Chair

 

Introduction

The FAC provides an important forum for faculty-administration dialogue.  Faculty members on the committee serve a two-year term and meet with members of the Senior Administration each week of the academic year for two hours.  This allows perhaps the most sustained and in depth conversation on issues of University governance on our campus.  At the same time, the value of the FAC is determined by the quality of the discussions, the nature of the matters discussed, and the working relationships that characterize a particular year’s FAC.  In a good year the FAC can play a pivotal role in helping to guide the University, while in an off year the FAC may have little or even harmful influence. 

 

Typically the annual report of the committee has consisted of a list of topics discussed, with little commentary and few supplemental remarks.  In part this is due to the confidential nature of FAC discussions.  In order to provide a “safe environment” for discussion, President Frohnmayer, Provost Mosely, and Vice-Provost Davis meet with the FAC with the understanding that, unless Faculty members are explicitly told that particular items may be shared outside the room, all discussions are limited to the committee and not to be discussed with anyone else.  At times the Administration does allow or even request that FAC members share issues and information with the broader University community, but that is the exception rather than the rule.  While this confidentiality is an understandable element of the functioning of the FAC, it does inhibit the creation of an “institutional memory” on the faculty side, disrupts the continuity of faculty participation, and cheats future iterations of the FAC and administrators of a benchmark for the successes, and failures, of shared governance in this critical committee.  This report, for AY 2002-2003, will respect the bounds of confidentiality while, at the same time, attempting to provide a somewhat fuller snapshot of the work of the FAC in the hope that it will prove a useful tool for those invested in Faculty-Administration cooperation.

 

One particular strength of the FAC is that it provides an opportunity for the Administration to inform the faculty about external issues that affect the operation of the University.  In AY 2002-03, much time was devoted to issues of budget, statewide politics, and the options, or lack thereof, facing the University in a harsh and worsening economic climate.  The Administration is to be commended for both sharing this information with the FAC, and for consistently grappling with the difficulties of budgetary uncertainty.  This is an enormous challenge, and draws an inordinate amount of time.  Concomitantly, the set of issues associated with the generation and allocation of resources is a critical one, and leads the FAC into discussions that range from the mundane to the philosophical.  This FAC touched upon questions that connected revenue streams with salaries, fund raising with the character of our institution, athletics and the role of a public University in American society.  For the sake of organizational efficiency, this report will group and detail some of the main topics taken up by the FAC, while acknowledging that a comprehensive review would be both unwieldy and inappropriate.

 

 

Shared Governance

The mandate of the FAC is vague (see Senate enabling resolution etc).  While a committee of the University Senate, with members elected by Faculty, OIs, and OAs, the committee serves the President, and responds to requests for advice on particular matters.  At the same time, the FAC can question and advise on issues raised by its members.  Throughout the year the FAC touched upon questions of the role of various University bodies:  the Senate, the FAC, and the University Assembly.  Similarly, the committee explored the mechanisms by which University policy is created and carried out.  It is clear that, given the decentralized nature of the University’s administration, the FAC does not have a voice, and cannot query or advise, in areas where many critical decisions are made.  Together, the questions about the role and authority of the various Faculty bodies, and the role of the respective Deans, suggest that shared governance cannot be realized in an optimal manner; many critical decisions and discussions take place with at best ad hoc Faculty input.  The FAC also discussed the cumbersome mechanism of the University Assembly, which, in light of the Iraq War resolution issue, seems an unlikely venue for a binding decision on any aspect of the University’s affairs.

 

Size and Character of the University

Enrollment issues were a concern of the FAC in relation to several particular questions.  The FAC explored how enrollment targets are determined, the relationship of enrollment to finance, and the potential for continued growth of the student body.  The FAC successfully lobbied for the inclusion of Faculty members on the Enrollment Management Council.  The discussion of the size of the student body was open-ended, however, and note was taken of the characterization of UO as a “small” AAU institution, a strong selling point for us.  As pressure for growth comes from a combination of increased demand, economic necessity, and the goals of the OUS system, the integrity of this “quality of the institution” issue may be seriously challenged.  Of more immediate concern is the growing demand on Faculty time that comes with more students in our classes.  Though the Administration offers statistics to show that class-size has not appreciably increased, the daily experience of teaching Faculty suggest a gap between the statistical representation of the issue (which may include research supervision, independent studies, and other credit-granting opportunities that mask an accurate portrait of average class size) and the experience of classroom teachers.  Similarly, there are differences in the perception of impacts of electronic media on faculty-student interaction, course preparation, and work load.

 

The Role of Athletics and the Character of the Institution

The constellation of issues relating to the size, direction, and financing of athletics at the University were discussed on a regular basis.  These discussions ranged from the particular (game scheduling in relation to final exams, recruiting practices,  editorials in the New York Times criticizing UO, etc.), to the nationwide debate on runaway athletics and the nature of higher education.  The FAC also sought clarification as to the mandate and progress of the Presidential panel on intercollegiate athletics.  While the shift to autonomous funding by UO athletics was regarded as a significant development, the pace of growth in the athletic budget and its dominant role in the Comprehensive Campaign were also noted with apprehension.  Faculty efforts to explore ways to better integrate athletics and make them more supportive of UO core missions, and to redirect public attention to academic priorities, were not fruitful.  Indeed, though considerable time was given to the discussion of athletics, the tenor and content of that discussion showed little evolution through the course of the year.

 

Legal Issues

The FAC dealt with a number of issues which exhibited an interface between the workings of the University and the law, ranging from on campus regulations and municipal law to federal legislation and its implications.  Among the topics discussed was the power of officers of the OPS, the “drying” of fraternities, responses to off-campus riots, the role of the University Counsel in setting policy, and the US Patriot Act and its bearing on faculty, staff, and students.  Also discussed was the role of the University Counsel and the increasing impact of “litigation avoidance” on free speech and University policy.  Concern was expressed over the intrusion of the US Patriot Act into the campus and classroom and its effect on both faculty and students.

 

Role of the University in Public Life

An ongoing discussion of the nature of the university and its mission marked the 02-03 FAC.  This was a response in part to the genesis of the Comprehensive Campaign and the question of how and for what to raise funds, and other types of support, for the University.  It was also the outgrowth of the fiscal challenges that have become chronic in Oregon, and the desire to more effectively communicate the value of the University to the broader community, and to those deliberating budgetary matters in Salem.  Much of the discussion on positioning or “branding” the University revolved around the character and mission of the institution, and this revealed a tension between broader notions of a liberal arts education and an “economic yield” model intended to convey the value added of UO education.  This is, of course, a timeless discussion, but one made particularly acute at this juncture because of the dwindling public funds for higher education and the impending allocation of private money to enable the next round of growth in all aspects of university life.  Faculty members voiced their reservations about potential funding mechanisms that would reward those units that are already eligible for significant outside funding, while inadequately supporting those that contribute to the breadth of the liberal arts education.   The arts and humanities less obviously or immediately translate their efforts into tangible benefits for the “knowledge economy” that has become a notional benchmark for the business community, and the FAC was wary of models driven by the business community and their influence on the language of University goals.  In this UO faces something of a dilemma.  In order to fare well in the rankings of the AAU we must concentrate our resources on a specific set of data-yielding units.  At the same time, in order to realize our potential and function as a true University rather than a vocational institution, we must invest our resources more broadly across the disciplines.  This tension calls for ongoing coordination between the Development arm of the University and the FAC and University Senate, and the participation of all units in setting and serving the fund-raising agenda.

 

An additional component of our discussion on the role of the University was the proper use of the University as a bully-pulpit for both faculty and Administration.  The debate over a Senate resolution about the war in Iraq was one impetus for this dialogue.  The Administration was clearly on record as opposing the resolution for jurisdictional reasons, despite the passage of similar resolutions at OSU and a host of other institutions.  The question of a “university voice” or a “university position” was discussed in relation to politics and funding, and in relation to the mission statement of the university and our pedagogical goals and opportunities. 

 

Conclusion – The Future of the FAC

The institutional history of the FAC is an oral one, and it is thus hard to know with any precision what the contribution of the Committee has been.  UO currently has an ethos of shared governance, and this is something to be valued, protected, and enhanced.  At the same time, there is room for improving the role of the faculty in determining the character and goals of the University as they are discerned, developed, and pursued by the Administration.  At this time the University is well-served by top administrators who have come from the ranks of our Faculty.  Though it has been some time since they served as rank-and-file members, they are well versed in our perspectives, and maintain relationships that allow them access to a broad range of campus opinion and perspective.  It is highly unlikely that this “home grown” advantage will endure when we enter the phase of administrative transition.  It is thus unwise to assume that the positive orientation toward shared governance will persist.  For this reason, efforts should be made now, in the conducive climate that we enjoy, to strengthen and institutionalize the cooperative modes and mechanisms that are the joint vision of our faculty and administrators.  Two specific goals should be pursued.

 

First, the general faculty should be more supportive of and engaged in the work of the FAC.  Membership on the Committee in recent years has been drawn from a small (and dwindling) number of committed faculty “activists.”  Current and past members and the administration should do all they can to broaden this pool and raise the profile of the FAC.  This is not an easy task given the complexity and demands of faculty life, and it is made more difficult by the confidential nature of FAC proceedings:  it is hard to advertise what is done in secret.  This leads to a second goal.

 

The Administration should take steps to chronicle the work of the FAC and the contribution that it makes to shared governance.  The success of its discussions and their influence on the University should be documented in a way that will allow future FAC members, and perhaps a broader audience, to learn from the past and capitalize on the hard work which has been a hallmark of the FAC.  As it now functions, each year’s FAC is limited to anecdotal evidence as to the work of its predecessors, and thus, beyond the previous year’s term of continuing members, must start from scratch.  This limits the effectiveness of the body, and costs the faculty valuable institutional memory.  While some FAC material must remain confidential, much of its work can be made accessible in a responsible manner.  The President, FAC Chair, and possibly the University Archivist should work in this direction so that the value of the FAC will be maintained for this Administration and its successors.

 

A final note.  Reputation has it that some FACs have been quite general and abstract in their discussions, others quite specific.  It is said that some years have been marked by faculty-driven discussions, whereas in other years the Administration has set the agenda.  Hopefully, the 2002-03 FAC was successful in spanning this range, as there is clear value in a vigorous and mutual discussion of the issues.  The Charter of the FAC is vague, but its deliberations, as was this case this year, should be focused, comprehensive, and spirited, as we continue to develop the University and seek to make it an even better institution.